The ending

I've read many of the comments regarding Adaptation, and it seems as
though most people have disliked this movie because of its ending. They
make claims such as, "Kaufman's script was great until the end," or,
"Why did Kaufman talk about not wanting to "hollywoodize" his script,
and then do it in the end anyway?"

I don't think most people understand why he did it.

Throughout the movie, Kaufman's character keeps stressing how much he
doesn't want to make a "Hollywood" film. Hollywood-type films have sex,
drugs, car chases, and most importantly, characters who succeed in the
end. So at a glance, it seems that Kaufman goes against his inner most
desires regarding the film because he does "hollywoodize" it.

But that is what I find to be the most clever part of his screenplay.
To explain my point, try to imagine this-what if Kaufman did not
"hollywoodize" his script? If he didn't do it, Kaufman would not have
added car chases, sex, and drugs. So in a way, if this were the case,
Kaufman would have succeeded. But you see, that is the point. Kaufman
DID NOT want his character to succeed in the end. Like he explained
throughout the movie, "I don't want to have a film...where characters
succeed in the end." Thus, since Kaufman ultimately fails at his
attempt to adapt Susan Orlean's book into a screenplay in how he
originally intended, he delivers a screenplay that is not your normal
hollywood film, i.e., a film where the protagonist prevails.

Basically, in order to make his film "un-hollywood," he "hollywoodizes"
it. Can nobody see the genius of this?

Anyway, I just thought that I could offer everyone my take on the movie
so that you all may perceive Kaufman's ending in a different light.

Was the above review useful to you?

328 out of 428 people found the following review useful:

I get it now.

The first time I saw "Adaptation" I expected something else and walked
away severely disappointed. As some of you out there who Private
Messaged me in regards to my initial review posted on IMDb might
already be aware, I originally gave it a rating of 3.5/5 stars, back
when I was frequently contributing to the site. I passed on without
much thought, considering it a disappointment and leaving my critique
for those who cared to read it.

It remains the single comment to have generated the most feedback for
me. More than "The Passion of the Christ," and more than yes, even my
upsetting review of 2003's "Peter Pan" (which seemed to anger the small
die-hard fanbase for the film that lurks on these message boards - by
the way, I've had to clarify this sentence by adding "for the film"
because someone PM'd me yesterday accusing me of implying I have a
fanbase on IMDb...no, I am referring to the film's fanbase, so please
hold off on the accusations). I digress. In summary I gave "Adaptation"
a negative rating and to my surprise, perhaps because I avoided totally
slamming the film, the fans responded to me with kind words rather than
harsh ones; conceivably they too had initially taken a dislike to the
film? I made a daring move. I bought "Adaptation" on DVD for ten bucks,
thinking, "I've got nothing to lose." Plus, the front cover looked cool
anyway.

I watched it again (after taking into mind several themes and
self-referential layers I had failed to visualize before) and was blown
away by the originality and genius of the movie.

My hugest complaint regarding "Adaptation," originally, was its absurd
ending -- I felt it was out of place, silly, and totally
anti-climactic. Little did I realize this was the point -- to be a
parody of the typical Hollywood blockbuster.

There are so many underlying jokes, gags and self-references that the
film grows better -- like "Back to the Future" -- on each new viewing.
You're always finding new stuff.

I found new respect for Nicolas Cage as an actor after my second
viewing of this. I have always liked Cage despite the criticism he
receives for being a one-sided actor; here, he proves he's capable of
creating two very different human beings out of the same mold.
Brilliant, Oscar-worthy stuff.

All in all I got it wrong the first time. "Adaptation" isn't a film
that starts out clever and descends into a messy and stupid finish.
Well, actually, it is. But that's the point. I didn't get it before.
Now I do.

If you disliked this film, my advice? Watch it again. It knows a bit
more about itself than you probably do. And read up on the message
boards here a bit to get a clearer grasp of what's going on if you're
totally clueless.

P.S. I'd like to thank all the people on this site who messaged me in
response to my review.

Was the above review useful to you?

163 out of 212 people found the following review useful:

Could you be more Original?

Charlie Kaufman might just be the most genius screenwriter (I daren't say
ever) at the moment.
I mean, trying to adapt a book for a screenplay, not succeeding, yet in
the
process writing a screenplay about how you can't seem to adapt this book
for
a screenplay.
Oh yeah, and also being helped by your not existing twin brother, and
crediting him as co-writer, and being nominatad for an Oscar together
with
him.

Is anyone following this?

Kaufman seems to be the master of destroying the line between reality and
fiction.

I kind of have a hard time saying anything about this movie, because I
don't
know what to say. You should just go and say it. There's nothing like it.

If you liked Being John Malkovic you wil definitely love this. If you
hated
BJM you might still like it. It doesn't have the absurdity and surreality
of
BJM. The story is just incredibly intelligently written.

Even though the movie is about how Kaufman is unable to adapt this book,
he
actually succeeds in doing just that in the process.

Jesus, I'm still totally stunned.

Jonze does do a very good job once again. But the direction is just
outshined by the story...

Was the above review useful to you?

83 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

"The script I'm starting, it's about flowers. No one's ever done a movie about flowers before."

After the phenomenal success of 'Being John Malkovich' in 1999,
screenwriter Charlie Kaufman was commissioned to adapt Susan Orlean's
non-fiction novel, "The Orchid Thief," for the screen. However, it
didn't take long for him to realise that Orlean's book was basically
unfilmable, its sprawling and ponderous story lacking any clear
structure or coherence. After some months of struggling vainly to write
a screenplay from the novel, Kaufman's script inexplicably became the
story of a writer's effort to adapt an unadaptable novel. Kaufman's
completed script was presented to his financial backers with some
trepidation, but they reportedly loved it so much that they decided to
abandon the original project and film his screenplay. Spike Jonze, who
had also directed "Being John Malkovich," returned to direct
"Adaptation," the quirky, twisting, self-referential film that received
almost universal critical acclaim. Much like Federico Fellini's classic
1963 film, '8½,' from which Kaufman almost certainly drew inspiration,
'Adaptation' tells the story of its own creation.

Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the lonely, insecure and socially
awkward screenwriter who is hired to adapt "The Orchid Thief," written
by Susan Orlean, who is portrayed by Meryl Streep. The novel itself
concerns the story of John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), a smug
plant dealer who was arrested in 1994 for poaching rare orchids in the
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. As Kaufman struggles to write the
script, his troubles are compounded by the presence of his twin
brother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is Charlie's exact
opposite: reckless, carefree, over-confident and perhaps even a bit
dim. The script for 'Adaptation' darts back and forth between different
moments in time, either chronicling Kaufman's screen writing exploits
or Orlean's experiences in writing her novel. At several points in the
story, more dramatic flashbacks take place: we see Charles Darwin first
penning his theories of evolution and adaptation, a brief history of
the grim activity of orchid-hunting, and, in one particularly
impressive sequence, we are taken back billions of years to the
beginning of life, to trace how Charlie Kaufman came to be here today.

Though purportedly based on a true story, the events of the film are
highly fictionalised, and the story always treads a fine line with
reality, with the audience never certain of whether or not an event is
real (in the context of the film) or merely a creation of Charlie's (or
even Donald's) imagination. Charlie Kaufman (the true-life writer, not
the character) often receives most of the accolades for the film, but
it is director Spike Jonze who shared the vision to execute
"Adaptation" on screen. His approach to film-making is always original
and daring, never tentative of trying something unique for the sake of
the film, even if it may offend the tastes of an audience that is
unaccustomed to anything other than the mundane clichés of the modern
movies that are churned out daily by Hollywood studios. If this wasn't
completely obvious after the weird, twisted, fascinating 'Being John
Malkovich,' then 'Adaptation' put any lingering doubts to rest. The
director, who started his career directing music videos, seems to share
a singular understanding with Kaufman the writer, and a mutual
agreement on what the film is actually trying to say.

In addition to a clever story, 'Adaptation' contains some of the finest
acting of the 2000s, presenting an excellent selection of seasoned
talents at the top of their games. In arguably the greatest role(s) of
his career, Nicolas Cage is phenomenal as both Charlie and Donald
Kaufman, twin brothers whose complete polarity is startlingly evident
in the execution of their respective film scripts. Charlie, whilst
writing his adaptation, is determined to avoid the usual clichés and
construct a film without any conventional plot, to write a movie
"simply about flowers." Donald, however, blissfully oblivious to his
own unoriginality as a writer, churns out a hackneyed psychological
thriller, entitled 'The 3,' in which the serial killer, his female
hostage and the cop are the very same person. In an ironic twist of
fate, Donald's trite treatment is hailed as a masterpiece, adding
further to the inadequacy already being felt by his disillusioned
brother. Cage is excellent, and often absolutely hilarious, as both
characters, giving each brother a distinct attitude and personality, so
that it is possible to tell immediately which is which even though
their physical appearance is exactly the same.

Meryl Streep is equally excellent as Susan Orlean, the journalist for
"The New Yorker" who researches John Laroche and endeavours to catch a
glimpse of the famed and very rare Ghost Orchid, if only to understand
what it feels like to be passionate about something. Chris Cooper
arguably steals the entire show as the charismatic and enigmatic
Laroche, whose tragedy-afflicted life is dedicated to mastering
numerous obscure fields (such as orchid-collecting, or
fish-collecting), each of which is sporadically cast aside and
permanently forgotten as soon as he feels it's time to move on, to
"adapt" to another hobby. From four Academy Award nominations, only
Cooper walked away with a statue. Notably, Charlie Kaufman's screenplay
was also nominated for an Oscar. Since the script was credited to both
"Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman," the latter became the only
entirely fictional person in history to have been nominated for an
Academy Award.

In a nutshell, 'Adaptation' is all about failure. Charlie Kaufman is
absolutely determined to write an original script, without cramming in
"sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons
or growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles to
succeed in the end." However, after he eventually asks Donald to
complete the script for him, it descends into exactly that. A visit to
a screen-writing seminar by Robert McKee (memorably played by Brian
Cox)  who is famous for warning strongly against Deus Ex Machina  is
used as exactly that. Charlie Kaufman the character fails miserably in
writing his script, but, ironically, Charlie Kaufman the writer
succeeds ever so magnificently!

Was the above review useful to you?

91 out of 113 people found the following review useful:

Clever... too clever?

John Laroche (an excellent, award-winning Chris Cooper) is a plant lover,
specialized in orchids. Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) writes a story about it,
and later a book. Charlie Kaufman (the always cool Nicholas Cage) has to
adapt the book to a screenplay.

Basicly, that's the story right there. But this movie comes with so many
twists, it's hard to catch up.

First of, Susan Orlean and her book really exist. As does Charlie Kaufman
(Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine o/t Spotless Mind). In fact, Kaufman
has written this movie. So Kaufman wrote a movie about Kaufman writing a
movie. You get it? Then there's the fact that all storylines are happening
at the same time (think The Hours). Add to that the twin brother Donald
Kaufman, who's also writing some parts. Or is he...? Does he even exist at
all?

The most confusing (and amusing) part is that movie-Kaufman (that's Cage) is
talking about making this movie. He's telling himself 'we open with a van on
the highway' and we've actually seen that part. It goes even beyond that,
when we hear him talk to his recorder: 'Charlie Kaufman is talking to his
recorder'. I loved that part.

But it's a movie you have to go along with. Kaufman and Jonze try
desperately to be clever and they've managed to do so. It's one of the most
original movies of the last ten years, but I'm sure it's not for all tastes.
If you like Being John Malkovich you should probably give it a go
though.

My score: 8/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

Adapt Your Thinking

While taking a break from studying for my calculus final (a brain-draining
exercise to say the least), I sat down to write out this review on what was,
no doubt about it, a brain-draining movie (in an offbeat but good way). Of
course I expected this from `Adaptation', for last month, in every major
magazine, it has been touted as a mind-twisting ride, which piqued my
interest.

Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage), by his own admission, is a loser. By my
viewing, that's a fairly accurate description-if you add neurotic. Anyhow,
Kaufman is a talented screenwriter, who, after writing what is his `script
of a lifetime' (`Being John Malkovich), he takes on a project that is over
his head-adapting Susan Orlean's (Meryl Streep) book, `The Orchid Thief'
into an amazing film about flowers that will stun and amaze
all.

The plot diverges here. One path follows Kaufman along the road to the
inevitable breakdown of writer's block that forces him to jump from idea to
idea in vain attempt to write a screenplay, until he commits the cardinal
sin of screenwriting-writing himself into the script. This is not helped in
the least by his hack brother Donald (Nicholas Cage) successfully working on
his own script (a complete antithesis of his own).

The other road follows Orlean as she goes about writing her book three
years earlier. The book is about a dentally challenged Floridian orchid
thief, John Laroche (Chris Cooper), who is personable enough to cause Orlean
to fall for him, his drugs, and his outside-the-law lifestyle.

As you might well imagine, this is not your usual Friday-night flick. The
complexity of three separate, yet interwoven plots (Laroche the thief,
Orlean writing about the thief and Kaufman writing about the writer writing
about the thief) is stunning and the end, for those who will get it (I did
not at first) will blow you away once it hits you I'll give you a bit of
help in knowing why the ending works later on. Oh, and Charlie (but not
Donald) Kaufman, Susan Orlean, and John Laroche are all real people, which
will make the film infinitely easier to understand.

Nicholas Cage is amazing. To have to carry out the performances of two
different characters is certainly a feat, but to do it with such widely
disparate characters like the Kaufmans is really nothing less than wondrous.
Not to be outdone, Meryl Streep is superb, especially in the third act of
the movie when her character becomes a more physical one. As for Cooper,
well, I don't want to insult the guy, but he comes across as a redneck hick
and a shyster, which is exactly what the script demanded.

All glory praise and honor for these fine actors would be for naught, had
it not been for director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman (see that
name before?). What they have done is simply amazing and is a tribute to
their brilliance. Visually, the film does not stand out much (except for the
fast-action evolution sequences that are worth their while). In short, kudos
to the entire staff.

I promised earlier to give you some help in figuring out why the ending
works before I thought of this nugget of info (instead of studying
anti-derivatives), the ending had me confused and slightly angry. The key to
the ending is in the opening credits, in the line `Written by Charlie and
Donald Kaufman'. Good luck in comprehending the ending. I give this film my
first 10 of the year.

Was the above review useful to you?

54 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

Cage redeemed.

A brilliant, original film, hilariously funny almost all the way through,
which is why the end seems disjointed and a bit out of sync with the rest
of
the film...until you consider McKee's advice to Kaufman, the success of
Donald's cliched script, and the pressure on Charlie Kaufman (in the film)
to finish the script. So it suddenly becomes a thriller, there's drama
added
to a genuinely moving story and characters, and it seems to rush towards
its
ending unprepared. But that's the whole postmodern element of the film -
is
it deliberately bad and pat (like the Player - a much lesser film that
doesn't stand up after repeated viewing)?

Anyway, Cage is fantastic in this - really if the Oscars were about
acting,
he should have got it for articulating two characters brilliantly. After
the
mess of Captain Corelli's Mandolin, it's some achievement.

A must see - but you need to engage your brain for this!

Was the above review useful to you?

55 out of 70 people found the following review useful:

A Guide on "How To Write A Screenplay" and "How to Live Life"

Jonze and Kaufman have pulled it off again. Witty, surreal, brilliant,
inventive, amazing and most of all; the most inspirational film I have
ever seen. One of the best and definitive films of the 21st Century.

Nicolas Cage has two parts in this film, Charlie Kaufman and Donald
Kaufman, twin brothers. Both screen writers. Charlie is writing a
screenplay based on a book called "The Orchid Thief" {a real book}. But
nothing happens in it. He is finding it hard to stay true to the book
when there's no events in the book. Writer's block. Meanwhile, Donald
is storming through his screenplay which is about a serial killer with
split personalities  a theme regularly used in cinema today. This is a
take on how and why there are so many teen horrors with crappy ideas,
while films that would appeal to a smaller audience are harder to
conjure. During the course of Adaptation. we see Charlie's screenplay
"The Orchid Thief" showing as it would if it became a film, featuring
the author; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and the books protagonist, John
Laroche (Chris Cooper).

Charlie Kaufman {the character} is one of the most relatable characters
in cinema for me. He too is looking for inspiration, something to help
achieve his dreams, but he can't seem to find it. He waits for
something to come and change his life for the good but never takes the
opportunity. He worries about the most insignificant things that aren't
life-changing. But the difference to me and Kaufman, is that he finds
the way. In the end he has learnt his lesson and learnt how to live
life. I am going to take the same advice. His narration gives us a very
detailed guide of his feelings and thoughts.

Nic Cage gives a redeeming performance and one of the best of his
career as both Charlie and Donald. They are very different
personality-wise, Charlie being nervous and frustrated, while Donald is
almost too upbeat about everything. His chemistry with himself is
incredible its hard to believe they are the same. Chris Cooper delivers
an Oscar winning performance, and it sure was worthy. Very fun
character, taking away his seriousness whenever he should be serious.
Meryl Streep is also flawless, giving a performance which she shows her
moods appropriate to the scene.

Spike Jonze gives us a very interesting directional view. With a lot of
tie-in's with Being John Malkovich (his previous film) to show us his
own little world, where anything can happen. There are also a lot of
tie-in's with the film itself in which Kaufman comes up with an idea
for the script in the film, when it actually happens in this film
(while his ideas are for "The Orchid Thief"). And, of course, there is
the strange factor in which Charlie Kaufman has included himself in his
screenplay and in the film, the character Charlie Kaufman has included
himself in his own screenplay. It is truly hard to believe how Kaufman
comes up with this stuff.

This may lack the dark style of "Being John Malkovich", but they are in
the same world. Don't miss this moving comedy and hilarious drama. I
can't help but get lost in its wonder.

10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

81 out of 134 people found the following review useful:

actors & director create startling and original film

"Adaptation" is an off-the-wall film with a startling second half.
Overall,
the film is darkly comic, but viewers get an unexpected dose of movie
action
and violence before everything is said and done.

It's fair to say that there is a fair amount of violence in the film, and
even when you know it's coming, you're still caught off guard. Spike
Jonze
is merciless in this regard. Some of the scenes are incredibly graphic,
in
fact.

There is a certain adolescent male tone to the film (the violence +
sexual
fantasy + masturbation). This is partially due to characterization and
partially due to the director's own aesthetic and perspective. It's not
a
bad thing, necessarily, either. It just feels as if an unassuming (white
male) kid who grew up thinking a lot about girls and watching movies
where
stuff blowed up made this film... See it and you'll know what I'm
saying.

The script is crazy. Absolutely zany. Akin to "Being John Malkovich"
really. Fortunately, this well gives opportunity for Nic Cage, Meryl
Streep, and Chris Cooper to really be free with their art.

Cage has a difficult role, portraying two very different identical twin
brothers. Cage is at the emotional core of the film. If his performance
doesn't resonate, the film doesn't work. I thought Cage was excellent.
And
that the script really gives him some wonderful, challenging material to
work with. His first scene with Tilda Swinton (looking gorgeous!) is
excellent.

Meryl Streep...well, what can be said. She's fantastic. She exudes a
tiredness and connectedness and hopelessness and sadness, evolving the
character brilliantly over the course of the film.

Similarly, Chris Cooper brings a humanity to the role of the Orchad
Thief,
really grounding the narrative and making it all believable. Again, he's
given a brilliant opening scene and he works wonders with it.
Throughout,
he is believably arrogant, lonely, vulnerable, and just plain real.
Cooper's performance is as rich as any other I've seen this year; truly,
truly sublime.

"Adaptation" is certainly not for everyone. If you're looking for
something
starkly different and simmering with originality, give this film a try,
though. Amidst some cloying self-referential clap-trap, there are
actually
some really freshing film moments.

Was the above review useful to you?

68 out of 115 people found the following review useful:

For me, it's uniqueness was both it's making and it's undoing

Following his success as screenwriter for 'Being John Malcovich',
Charlie Kaufman is given the job of adapting Susan Orlean's book 'The
Orchid Thief' which she expanded from a piece in The New Yorker that
she wrote on the obsessive orchid hunter John Laroche. While Charlie
struggles to adapt the book into a workable film, his twin brother,
Donald, writes a successful script around serial killers. The more
Charlie struggles to get a story from the book the more the stories and
his life start to intertwine.

I wanted to see this film because I had enjoyed BJM and was interested
to see what Jonze did next. I came to it with a vague knowledge of the
plot but nowhere near enough o have expectations. For the majority of
the film, the different style and presentation kept me deeply
interested. The way the different stories occurred in different times
and places worked a lot better than I would have expected it to. The
plot gets increasingly difficult to follow and you'll get as much as
you want from it. For those just looking for a simple story then you'll
have a nice neat resolution, if you want more then more is there for
you as you try to work out what part of the film is real and what part
isn't.

I came away with mixed feelings. I felt that the ending was not as
clever as it thought it was and didn't give a good ending for those who
weren't happy to accept things at face value. I didn't feel let down I
just felt that the last section of the film stepped down a gear rather
than up. I know that this is the point that Jonze was making perhaps,
by allowing Donald's derided ending come to live and be the replacement
for Charlie's original aim. But it didn't totally do it for me. Up till
this section I was hooked and felt that the various stories all worked
to form a mix of drama and comedy. However the end does a disservice to
it's characters.

Cage shows that the recent cr*p he has been in doesn't mean he can't
act (just that he doesn't). He really brings his two characters to life
and plays them so well that it is easy to forget that it is the same
person in both roles. Cooper is wonderful and deserved his Oscar for
support. Streep, as much as I dislike her, was very good and brought
that difficult character out  although I did feel she was the one most
betrayed by the film's end.

Overall this was an interesting film that worked in most areas. It's
difference and it's inventiveness were such that I wanted to keep
watching. However I, and I know others will disagree, felt that this
uniqueness was not well served by the end of the film. I understand
that it was not meant to exist in the same way as the majority of the
film but I still felt that the ending didn't meet the standard set by
the rest of the film.